The article hits the nail in the head. This is also the reason why making games for classic consoles/computers was so enticing. You could not just use any image: it had to be pixel art with tile and palette restrictions, and there was joy in getting more juice out of the same machine. And the same happened with music, RAM, CPU, etc.
And that same joy is the reason why today people (myself included) have created fantasy consoles to make games enforcing similar restrictions.
Very interesting. Looking at the images I'm not sure if this is based on Autodesk Inventor (plausible since they already imitated AutoCAD), or in Solid Edge (given the name).
Fusion is the main idea behind solidcraft as far as I know. But it is NOT aiming to be a copy of anything featurewise unlike most stuff associated with artcraft (and solidcraft is not an official artcraft app despite the name, at least not yet).
> simply dumping proofs on the math community and expecting others to do the grunt work of verifying, refining, and expanding on them is hardly a productive way to advance the field.
I tend to agree with this, but what is the alternative? Should OpenAI and Anthropic employ hundreds of mathematicians to do this work? Should they just not solve math problems within their reach?
It's unclear what more could be expected than releasing the presumably already verified results and write-ups for each problem. Should they run a mathematics school too?
Then the comment goes on to argue AI labs were not interested in actually advancing mathematics, and that investments into AI were manically excessive.
IMO none of this follows and demand is there to justify the investments.
The comment then goes further to argue that AI labs were putting too much effort into pretending there was exponential progress rather than actually making progress.
The factual basis for this claim seems to be that OpenAI released math results and write-ups, and it's not even clear what more they could do on that topic.
Look at how actual researchers are currently using the tools: they'll generally use the LLMs to create slop papers, sometimes supported by auto-formalizations, just like OpenAI does. Then they will go through the lengthy process of digesting the results, turning the often incomprehensible and poorly organised outputs into something that humans can understand and build upon, they will then give seminars on the results, further helping with dissemination. Doing so still requires expertise, and probably will for a good while.
So yes, that is exactly what they should do. Alternatively, if they are too lazy or incompetent to put in the effort themselves, do what AGMAI proposed and fund a third party to help out.
I was sure this article would be about how we tell computers to do things now (writing prompts to an AI in plain English). I was wrong. Interesting nonetheless.
LLMs solved this exact problem. Not perfectly (they can sneak in some malicious commands) but good enough for everyone. This is also mostly what non-developers mean by "vibe-coding". They can "tell the computer to do the things" they want. Previously they were limited to existing GUI applications. Now they can automate and customize their workflows as they wish and think they're a 'coder'.
That's a huge part of the appeal. If you're really lazy you can tell an LLM to add a specific column to a specific database, and it will handroll some SQL just for you and run it.
It's slow and very inefficient, but it works.
Why do this? It would be insane for production, but for development it frees you up to improvise and experiment. You can iterate strategies and solutions far more quickly, test as you go, and bake a final production version into static code.
Absolutely. My point was not to agree with the new name, but to say that USA should not call themselves America (which is not just arrogant, but plainly incorrect)
And that same joy is the reason why today people (myself included) have created fantasy consoles to make games enforcing similar restrictions.
reply